why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Postby havanagilla » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:38 pm

On the board, and elsewhere in "real life", it appears that the old Empire, ("the sun never sets..."blah blah) is rearing its ugly colonialist head in the Middle East. for the last 5 years, it seems, the UK (and other European "powers") have been present more than before in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East, in an attempt (probably) to salvage their interest in the oil/region, from US economic takeover. <br>While i'd be the first to criticize the nazi US allignments who turned Israel into the hell it is now, let us not forget who are the "new and improved" anti war germans and english people...antiaristo gives up a brief glimpse into the sewage of the european and english "collective unconscious". and it looks bad, very reptilian in fact. <br>too many MI5 and 6 and what not roaming around the middle east recently, capitalizing on (justified) anti american sentiments and feeding on the frustration and anger. Are they bringing peace and human rights ? it turns out that despite the rhetoric, they dont' bring anything different from the USA, except they won't even hand out green cards generously to the peoples they crush. <br>It is old, blue, reptilian blood going back to templars and crusades and c o l o n i a l i s m. nothing to write home about. its a pitty to see the pitting and the dividing going on between the two superpowers, at the expense of lives in the Middle East. <br>----<br>The recent Moslem "riots" in Europe, fueling the "war of civilization" false meme, is a proof that the Christian-western world, will eventually stand united, as it has always done, against other cultures it deems inferior, in the attempt to maintain domination and exploitation.<br><br>just my <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear" target="top">thoughts this evening.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Britain to Call for New Talks With Iran By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer <br>15 minutes ago<br> <br><br><br>VIENNA, Austria - Britain plans to call for new talks with Iran about its suspect nuclear program at Monday's high-level diplomatic meeting outside the U.N. Security Council, diplomats said. <br><br>ADVERTISEMENT<br> <br>Two diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because the strategy was confidential, said the proposal was angled toward Russia and China — staunch opponents of firm Security Council action against Iran. The council has the power to impose economic and political sanctions.<br><br>In return for the West's willingness to resume talks with Tehran, the Russians and Chinese would be expected to agree to tougher Security Council action should that be needed, the diplomats said.<br><br>Moscow and Beijing have called for new negotiations with Iran on its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment — a possible pathway to nuclear arms. They also have said the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, should assume the main role in cajoling Iran on enrichment and its refusal to fully cooperate with an IAEA probe.<br><br>One of the diplomats said France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany likely would be asked to talk directly with Tehran, with strong support from Washington, but added it also was possible that pressure might be exerted on the United States to join in.<br><br>He quoted from what he said was a British proposal saying: "We are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept sanctions in the following months — certainly not without further effort to bring the Iranians around."<br><br>In return for the Russians and Chinese agreeing to tougher action should Iran remain defiant in the coming months, "we would then want to put together a package, which then could be presented to the Iranians as a new proposal," he said, quoting from the British paper.<br><br>Neither diplomat had details on what the new incentives would look like.<br><br>But any talks with U.S. involvement likely would need to focus on economic and security guarantees meant to reassure Tehran that Washington has no plans to force a regime change. Critics of U.S. policy have maintained for years that Tehran was unlikely to compromise on its nuclear program without such a direct guarantee.<br><br>Similar negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of economic and political incentives offered in return for a permanent end to uranium enrichment. Iran voluntarily suspended that enrichment in 2004 under a deal with the Europeans.<br><br>Its subsequent moves to develop full-blown enrichment capabilities led the IAEA's 35-nation board to ask for Security Council involvement earlier this year. Uranium enrichment can create both fuel and the fissile core of nuclear warheads.<br><br>With talks stalled in the Security Council, moderate U.S. administration officials might be ready to contemplate direct multilateral talks with Tehran similar to the six-nation talks designed to get North Korea to give up its nuclear arms aspirations.<br><br>The concept of U.S. involvement in such talks seems more realistic after the Bush administration's recent decision to talk to Iranian officials about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties. U.S. officials have emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue.<br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=havanagilla>havanagilla</A> at: 3/20/06 1:42 pm<br></i>
havanagilla
 
Posts: 769
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:02 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Postby antiaristo » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:18 pm

havanagilla,<br>The simple answer to your question is that "Europe" is not governed democratically, and so is not responsive to the wishes of its peoples.<br><br>The power locus in Europe is the Council. The rest is window dressing to provide the facade of democracy.<br><br>The Coucil is the meeting of heads of state and of government that takes place roughly every three months.<br>What Europe does is decidec ay these meetings.<br><br>There's the rub. They are held in secret. Absolute secrecy. Even if a crime is uncovered, as with Blair in June 2000, secrecy reigns, and the rest of us hear nothing. If you want to be a member of the club, your loyalty to the club must be absolute. Berlusconi is known to traipse around, cutting business deals for himself and on behalf of others. Blair acted as go-between with Rupert Murdoch.<br><br>What emerges is exactly what you perceive. The policies and politics of the royal families of Europe. Of the Order of the Garter.<br><br>Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense.<br>Or, as Anders put it<br><br>Don't Fuck With Us<br><br>Postscript<br>Please do not blame the English.<br>The English are the captives of the Scots.<br>The Scottish Raj rules Westminster and Whitehall.<br>Next time you hear that well known cunt Sir Sean Connery spitting his poison about the English, remember it is HIS crowd that call the shots in London.<br>It is HIS hands that are covered in blood. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

RE

Postby Quentin Quire » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:22 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The English are the captives of the Scots.<br>The Scottish Raj rules Westminster and Whitehall. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Can you expand upon this, Anti? It's a new one to me. <p></p><i></i>
Quentin Quire
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE

Postby antiaristo » Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:46 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Can you expand upon this, Anti? It's a new one to me.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Quentin,<br>I'm surprised it's new to you.<br>It's quite well known in London, just not spoken about.<br><br>Why not convince yourself?<br><br>Write out a list of those who do, or may hold power.<br>Then write down their nationality.<br>Then compute the statistical probability of such an outcome occuring by chance.<br><br>The three party leaders.<br>The co-prime minister.<br>The Lord Chancellor.<br>The Speaker of the House of Commons.<br><br>That's six persons.<br>Between them they control the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.<br><br>By chance? What are the odds?<br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Postby antiaristo » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:03 am

I'm not sure if Quentin is having trouble with his calculator, or has lost interest.<br><br>Blair, Cameron, Campbell, Brown, Falconer, Martin.<br><br>I estimate the chances work out at <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>one in a million</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> (10^6)<br><br>But that's not the whole story.<br>That calculation assumes a UNITARY STATE.<br><br>But England and Scotland are separate nations.<br><br>Each has its own national church.<br><br>Each has its own High Court<br><br>Each has its own separate legal system.<br><br>Scotland has its own parliament. England does not.<br>She dare not allow an English parliament.<br><br>What the two nations have in common is a line of succession to their respective crowns.<br><br>Quentin says this is new to him.<br>In fact the Lord Chancellor gave a speech just over a week ago where he explicitly denied the need for an English parliament.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2081571,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...71,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>You don't have to be of the "You can't believe it until they deny it" school to find this of interest.<br><br>For here is a Scot, Lord Falconer, who happens to be head of the English legal system, to control the courts of England, telling us English that the Scottish Raj is a figment of our imaginations.<br><br>And the press report it with a straight face (as they must)<br><br>Can you imagine an Englishman being put in charge of the courts in Scotland? That prick Connery would be all over our screens, frothing at the mouth.<br><br>And just the once, he would not be acting.<br><br>It'S THE TEMPLARS. IN THE GUISE OF SCOTTISH RITE FREEMASONS.<br><br>And it is they who are making life for havanagilla truly a hell on Earth.<br><br><br>POSTSCRIPT<br><br>Does it really matter that this foreigner controls the English courts?<br><br>Yes, it does. He does not respect our laws.<br>In fact he tramples them underfoot.<br><br>The most egregious example? The "marriage" of the Prince of Wales.<br><br>The Marriage Act is quite clear.<br>Members of the royal family are NOT allowed to participate in a civil marriage. No exceptions at all.<br><br>But Falconer decided otherwise.<br>He cited the right to marriage as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. He decided this overruled the Marriage Act.<br><br>This is what that Convention, and the Human Rights Act, actually say. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>ARTICLE 12 <br> RIGHT TO MARRY <br> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm#sch1">www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts...d.htm#sch1</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>According to the text of the law you cannot use it to overturn national laws.<br>Which is exactly what Falconer did.<br>And the newspapers reported it with a straight face.<br><br>Not one published the text of Article 12.<br>Even yor average Sun reader might have smelt something funny going on.<br><br>So what say you now, Quentin, about the Scottish Raj? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 3/21/06 6:13 am<br></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Postby friend catcher » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:36 am

The Antiaristo has portrayed the UK in a misleading light. As probably most of the board users will agree there is far more to the nature of power than the personal identities of the political chairwarmer of the moment. Referring to the insignificant marriage of a prince as an example of Scottish disrespect for 'our laws' is about as petty as I can imagine.Better maybe to have chosen the suspension of Habeus Corpus that has existed since 2001 and will be enshrined in Law this year. <br>The uk parliament is in effect the parliament for England and always has been, devolving local decision making to a Scottish parliament which has no tax raising powers does not change much.<br>As the Labour party roots have always been in the North of Britain particularly Scotland with its now extinct heavy industries can it be a wonder that many of the present crop are Scottish? There have been times recently when not a single tory was elected in Scotland and yet the UK parliament remained in sole charge - and made them suffer for it. <br>But away from that history and look to the present situation where a well connected and wealthy bunch of people of many nationalities and not a few perversions have attained a degree of control that becomes more ominous by the day.These are the people that RI brings into the light and should be noted, the mechanisms of their little and not so little tyranies that need to be investigated. The endless reference to monarchy as the power nucleus of western supremacy belongs in the dustbin; a lot of money, some residual constitutional powers and a degree of influence are about all the queen has and much of that will vanish when the fruit bat son inherits. <p></p><i></i>
friend catcher
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyw

Postby antiaristo » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:48 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Referring to the insignificant marriage of a prince as an example of Scottish disrespect for 'our laws' is about as petty as I can imagine.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>friendcatcher,<br>You have put on display both your lack of imagination and your ignorance.<br><br>It's better not to disparage what you do not understand. <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Postby antiaristo » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:00 pm

havanagilla,<br>Here is your answer, out of the mouth of Her constitutional "fixer".<br>For "royal prerogative" substitute "Treason Felony Act".<br><br>She has NO intention of giving it up.<br>And NO intention to cease and desist from her attacks.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">MPs military action vote opposed</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Press Association <br>Wednesday March 22, 2006 8:23 PM<br><br>The Government remains convinced that it would be wrong to introduce a formal requirement for the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Prime Minister to obtain approval from MPs</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> before committing British troops to military action, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has said.<br><br>Chancellor Gordon Brown last year appeared to indicate that he was willing to give up some of the PM's Royal Prerogative powers, when he said that people would expect future decisions on whether troops were deployed to go before Parliament.<br><br>But Lord Falconer has insisted that this did not mean the Government was ready to accept a law - or even a formal convention - requiring a vote in the Commons before Britain goes to war.<br><br>He told a hearing of the House of Lords Constitution Committee that it would be "positively detrimental" to the ability of the armed forces to protect British interests and the lives of British citizens abroad.<br><br>"The Government's position is that the current arrangement on the power to deploy UK troops abroad should remain as it is at the moment," he told the committee.<br><br>Lord Falconer accepted that the Royal Prerogative, which allows the PM to declare war and make peace, deploy troops, conduct diplomacy and conclude treaties <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>without Parliamentary approval</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, was "in many respects ... a historical anachronism".<br><br>And he said Prime Minister Tony Blair believed that, in practical terms, his power to wield the prerogative was "more theoretical than real", as his Government relied ultimately for its existence on the support of a majority in the House of Commons.<br><br>But he insisted that only the prerogative guaranteed ministers the flexibility to respond swiftly to complex and dangerous situations, in which it was not always possible to release all available intelligence to Parliament.<br><br>Even if ministers were given leeway to seek Parliamentary approval retrospectively in emergency situations, they would face the danger that MPs would vote against military action when troops were already in the field.<br><br>"<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Formal constraints</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, either in statute or a convention, do not work when faced with the reality of deployments," he told the committee, which is carrying out an inquiry into the use of the Royal Prerogative.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5704103,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...03,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"..or to put any force or constraint upon her...."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Another Academic Prostitute

Postby antiaristo » Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:16 am

There is a simple reason why she DARE NOT allow an English Parliament.<br><br>Such an institution would inevitably give voice to the English Constitution.<br><br>The Act of Settlement<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,407239,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/monarc...39,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Amongst the many benefits gained by us English would be the immediate disqualification of the Prince of Wales.<br><br>The man who murdered our Princess would br thwarted.<br><br>Robert Hazell may well carry the title of professor.<br>But he's an out and out liar.<br><br>Servicing the rich and powerful wankers that are destroying my people.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:medium;">The English question</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Professor Robert Hazell asks whether England needs its own parliament <br><br>Wednesday March 29, 2006 <br><br><br>The English question is a portmanteau heading for a series of questions thrown up by devolution to Scotland and Wales. They fall into two broad categories: whether England needs a stronger political voice, to balance the louder political voice now accorded to Scotland and Wales; and whether England would also benefit from devolution, by devolving power within England.<br><br>England could find a stronger political voice through an English parliament, or English votes on English laws. Other possible solutions for devolving power within England have included regional government, city regions, stronger local government, and elected mayors.<br><br>The Conservatives have focused on the first version of the question, arguing for English votes on English laws, and reduced Scottish and Welsh representation at Westminster, but they are opposed to regional government.<br>Labour has focused on devolving power within England, by strengthening the regional tier, but it failed in its attempt to introduce elected regional assemblies in 2004.<br><br>An English parliament would in effect create a federation of the four historic nations of the UK.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Such a federation would not work because England would be too dominant, with 85% of the population. No other federation in the world has survived where one of the units is so hugely dominant.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>No heavyweight British politician has espoused the idea of an English parliament, and public attitude surveys over the last five years show support consistently at between 16% and 19%.<br><br>The Conservatives briefly flirted with the idea in 1999 under the early leadership of William Hague, but subsequently fell back on the policy of English votes on English laws.<br><br>English votes on English laws does command majority support, in England and in Scotland. It seems only logical and fair that Scottish MPs should no longer be allowed to vote on legislation purely affecting England, when English MPs can no longer vote on equivalent measures in Scotland.<br><br>The former Conservative minister Kenneth Baker introduced a bill in the House of Lords that would achieve just that. But technically there is no such thing as an 'English law', and any Speaker's ruling on which votes should be English-only would be heavily contested.<br><br>Politically the difficulties would be even greater. It would create two classes of MP, and lead to potentially serious instability if the UK government could not command a majority for its English business.<br><br>The idea would involve more than just a modest procedural change. Effectively it would create a parliament within a parliament, with an English parliament operating within the shell of Westminster.<br><br>Two partial solutions would help correct the underlying problem. The first would be to reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs, to reflect their reduced role post devolution.<br><br>The second would be proportional representation, which would help reduce Labour's exaggerated representation in Scotland and Wales, which is a result of the current first-past-the-post system.<br><br>Solutions still on hold<br><br>Most of the solutions to devolve more power within England are perfectly feasible, but are unlikely to happen.<br><br>Elected regional assemblies are dead for the time being. All parties pay lip service to strengthening local government, but once in power continue to undermine it.<br><br>City regions would require a further round of local government reorganisation, for which there is no political appetite. Elected mayors have had their moment, with only 11 towns and no large cities opting for a mayor in local referendums since 2001.<br><br>Meanwhile, administrative regionalism continues to grow, with the latest accretions being the fire service and the police. This creeping regionalism will eventually lead to the question being posed once again of whether the new regional structures should come under direct democratic control.<br><br>Regional government in England is the only solution that offers an answer to both versions of the English question.<br><br>It could help give England a louder voice within the union, and help decentralise the government of England. But defeat in the North East referendum in 2004 has raised the bar.<br><br>Any future proposals for elected regional assemblies will need to offer a stronger set of powers and functions. The GLA provides a possible model, with London's Olympics bid showing that a strategic authority can make a difference in promoting a region, both within the UK and to the wider world.<br><br>· Prof Hazell is Director of the Constitution Unit in the School of Public Policy at UCL, and editor of a new book The English Question, available from Manchester University Press<br><br>· He will be speaking tonight at a seminar debating the issues raised in this article at the Constitution Unit at UCL, beginning at 6pm<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1741419,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...19,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>That's it then.<br><br>The Great Man says it won't work, and rejects the idea.<br>How wonderful to have such power!<br><br>So the rest of us can just get used to the idea of Queen Camilla. Get over it already! Move on! Draw a line!<br><br>Hazell has also been recruited to pen a full-frontal assault on the Church of England.<br>The only institution that stands between the Prince of Wales and the Throne.<br><br>Friend of yours, Dreams End? <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Another Academic Prostitute

Postby Dreams End » Wed Mar 29, 2006 12:42 pm

Okay anti. I was trying to be nice. That remark goes to Jeff. I've let other s slide, especially the tasteless one on slimmouse's thread mourning the loss of his goddaughter.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Democracy in England

Postby antiaristo » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:43 am

There are local elections.<br>Scotland is NOT voting.<br>London and about half the rest of England are voting.<br>That's about two-thirds of England (can't let them ALL vote at the same time. old boy. Divide and rule!).<br><br>Equivalent to an electorate of around twenty-three millions.<br><br>The total electorate in Scotland is about 3.6 millions.<br><br>Scotland has THREE levels of government. Westminster, Edinburgh, local.<br><br>England has TWO levels of government. Westminster, local.<br><br>So these elections rank second only to the General Election. They are important.<br><br>This is what New Labour has on offer to the English electorate.<br><br>Blair, Brown, McCartney, Prescott, Jowell.<br><br>The first three are Scottish.<br>For the purposes of these English elections they are foreigners.<br>It's like Canadians running the campaign in the United States (think about that).<br><br>They are also crooks.<br><br>Blair and Brown you know about already<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2221.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2221.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>McCartney signed the submissions to the appointements commission on behalf of the Labour Party. He certified that those secret donors had no financial links with the party.<br><br>Prescott and Jowell are both English. Prescott's trademark is that he cannot construct a meaningful sentence in the English language.<br><br>Jowell was at the centre of the last scandal, since D-noticed about three weeks ago.<br>There is enough evidence already in the public domain to send her to prison.<br><br>Yet she is THE FACE of the Labour campaign. She is presented as Mary Poppins.<br><br>This is what New Labour offers the voters of England.<br><br>This is what the Windsors mean by "law and justice in mercy".<br><br>So please, havanagilla, if you are reading this, please do not blame us English for all the blood that will be spilt.<br><br>It is the Scots that glory in all this guts and gore and death.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="font-size:small;">It's Smiley's people who are calling the shots . .</span><!--EZCODE FONT END--> <br><br>Parliamentary sketch by Ann Treneman<br> <br>IT WAS all so top secret that it was almost like a spy novel. I speak, of course, of Labour’s local government election campaign launch. Even the night before, the event remained shrouded in mystery. My only clue to what was going on was that I had been given a secret pager number and the instruction to ring it at 07.30 hours (spies always use 24-hour clocks, I believe). Only then would I receive the co-ordinates for the launch location. <br><br>Hardly any press could be allowed in because “space was very limited”. This made it sound even more mysterious. I had visions of an underground bunker. How dull then to find myself at a boring old building near Tower Bridge (it was five storeys high and so space obviously not that limited). We were ushered into a secret closed room and told that no questions were allowed. <br><br>Why was this? But that was a question and, therefore, could not be answered. If questions are banned, they are banned. No exceptions, even for questions about a ban. I must say that holding an election launch without questions was a bit odd. But I could see their point. After all questions can be so very irritating. Questions are, in fact, almost as unpredictable as voters. If the Labour Party could, it would hold elections without any voters or questions to mess up their lovely plans. Is this democracy? (Sorry, that’s a question.) If it is then it’s <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>democracy, Soviet-style.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>As the time drew near, we received further instructions though, sadly, not in invisible ink. We were going to be led to a lift and taken to the fifth floor. We would be ushered to the back of a room. Before us would be five tables, each occupied by eight Labour Party people and one empty chair. We were not to speak to anyone. We would be given special earphones to wear throughout. <br><br>It went like clockwork except for the bit where Adam Boulton, the man from Sky, got into the lift and broke it. The earphones were huge, like giant mufflers. They made us look mad, as if we were in direct contact with Bomber Command. The empty chairs were not for us but the politicians. <br><br>Tony Blair arrived in “casual” mode with rolled up shirtsleeves. Gordon Brown wore his usual dark suit but he had pre-pasted on his smile. I could see why the next three didn’t want to answer questions. Ian McCartney, the party chairman, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>has an accent that needs decoding</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Then there was John “Punch” Prescott and Tessa Jowell, who looks like a wounded deer after all that scandal. <br><br>Tony gave a short speech in which he told us how great he was. He also said, briefly, how great Gordon was. Gordon then told us how great Gordon was. He didn’t say how great Tony was but he did mention Tony’s name four times. This created the illusion of intimacy but no one was taken in. <br><br>There was then about ten minutes of “talk time” at the tables. We were stuck in our quarantined positions and our earphones were being controlled by an Unseen Presence. <br><br>The Presence began at Tony’s table, where we heard him chatting about his Respect agenda and his coffee. “Don’t tell Cherie,” he said as he grabbed a cup. As if we would. <br><br>I tried to get near to Gordon’s table but my way was blocked by two Labour people. Then the Presence switched over to him anyway. <br><br>“What are your big concerns?” he boomed. <br><br>“Parking,” said a real person. <br><br>“Parking!” boomed the man who doesn’t drive. “Yes.” <br><br>Then Ian said it was time to hit the phones: “It’s good to talk!” Well, shouted a hack, why not talk to us then? But that was a question and so had to be ignored.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2120677,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...77,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Get the picture yet?<br> <br> <br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

re

Postby boyrobot » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:55 am

ugh, there seem to be a few on this board who have blinkers on and their own personal agenda to push across no matter what people may say to the contrary. Does it really matter what nationality the current people holding power are? A crook is a crook. <p></p><i></i>
boyrobot
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Divide and Rule

Postby antiaristo » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:58 am

Uh, thanks for that, "boyrobot".<br>What was your first post?<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Does it really matter what nationality the current people holding power are?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>I suppose you could ask that question of Gandhi's ghost.<br>Or the American Revolutionaries.<br><br>Or black men.<br>Or working class women.<br><br>What difference does it make that the persecutors are of a different group to those they persecute?<br><br>Tell me, do you know any history of the British Empire, how it functioned?<br><br>You have a lot to contribute "on this board" don't you?<br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Divide and Rule

Postby boyrobot » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:31 am

oops. I should of added 'now in the UK' to my post with regards to the "Does it really matter what nationality the current people holding power (now in the UK) are?". <br><br>I just don't see the significance of it. More than likely i'm missing something vital and the fact that a few uk politicians are scottish signals the end of man kind as we know it. <p></p><i></i>
boyrobot
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:04 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: i think its anti-aristo not anti-scottish

Postby hmm » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:43 am

i think anti's point was more about the absurdity of the uk constitution, or lack of one, and that because of that democracy is legally little more than a "gentleman's agreement" in the uk. <p></p><i></i>
hmm
 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests